Conflict of Interest. Background. Peer Instruction Principles. Origin of peer instruction. Special Thanks to: 2014 CGEA 3/28/2014

Transcription

1 USE OF MODIFIED PEER INSTRUCTION SESSIONS IN AN INTRODUCTORY PATHOBIOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY COURSE Conflict of Interest Mary Jo Trout, PharmD Nicole Borges, PhD Paul Koles, MD Special Thanks to: Aaron Smith, Academic Technology Analyst collected the data Valencia Merrill, Data Collection Specialist help make sense of the data Background Introductory course very early in year 2 at Boonshoft School of Medicine (BSOM) 4 weeks, basic concepts in pathology & Flipped Classroom model All lectures on-line for study outside class All class time devoted to active learning Incorporated Peer Instruction strategy Origin of peer instruction Peer Instruction Principles 1. Mini-lecture in class: key points (7-10 min) 2. Concept test (5-8 min) 3. Correctness of answers not graded 4. Overall participation graded Lasry et.al. Am J Phys,2008;76(11):

2 What we changed 1.No lecture in class (all content delivered on-line) 2.Entire class time for application questions (2 hr.) 3.No credit or grade for participation Research Question Did attending Modified Peer Instruction (MPI) sessions improve performance on high stakes exams? Methods 1 All lectures recorded on Quick Time Textbook readings correlated with lectures Content domain defined for each MPI session Methods 2 Each 2 hour session: multiple choice questions (MCQs) Sessions were not graded; attendance not mandatory Question and answers (but not discussion) posted after session Methods 3 Example After completion of course, data comparing attendance at MPI sessions was correlated with exam scores 2

3 Example answer display Answers after discussion in pairs Results Exam 1 mean scores Exam 2 mean scores 85.24% 82.59% 83.45% 76.57% 2.6% higher exam score (p=0.196) 6.9% higher exam score (p= 0.004) Exam 3 mean scores Exam 4 mean scores 91.16% 87.33% 88.10% 81.03% 3.8% higher exam score (p= 0.084) 7.1% higher exam scores (p= 0.002) 3

4 Final exam mean scores 82.10% 73.93% at 1 MPI Did not attend a MPI at 1 MPI: 8.2% higher exam score (p < 0.001) Not mandatory No way to control for academic caliber of students who attended Decreased over time 75% at session 1 25% at session 4 74% attended at least 1 session 17% attended all 4 sessions Performance vs. Week 2 exam scores 83.45% for attendees vs % for nonattendees attendees upper quartile ~36% attendees top quartile based on end of yr 1 ranking Week 4 exam scores 88.1% for attendees vs % for nonattendees 8 31 attendees upper quartile ~ 25% attendees top quartile based on end of yr 1 ranking Limitations Limited student preparation time potential limited benefit from discussions Posting of questions and answers after the session potentially diluted effect of attendance Exam performance not correlated with precise performance on MPI questions Conclusions 1. at one or more modified Peer Instruction sessions is associated with better final exam scores on -based questions. 2. Lack of a mechanism to promote or insure attendance at MPI sessions probably diminished learning among those who chose not to attend. Recommendations for next year Consider methods to promote higher attendance at MPIs Increase students preparation time for MPI sessions Share results of this study with next year s class at the beginning of the course. 4

5 Thanks for listening Any Questions? References E. Mazur. Peer Instruction: A User s Manual. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall;1997. C. H. Crouch, J. Watkins, A. P. Fagen, and E. Mazur, "Peer Instruction: Engaging Students One-on-One, All At Once," in Research-Based Reform of University Physics, edited by E. F. Redish and P. J. Cooney (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007), Reviews in PER Vol. 1, < N. Lasry, E. Mazur, J. Watkins. Peer Instruction: From Harvard to the Two-Year College. Am J Phys, 2008; 76(11)